Simpson v. Masters

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 17 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert, DENIES petitioner's 15 and 16 Motions for Final Disposition or Order in a Habeas Proceeding, DISMISSSES petit ioner's 1 Section 2241 Petition, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court's docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 5/19/2016. (cc: counsel of record and petitioner, pro se) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
IRVIN LAMAR SIMPSON
Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action No: 1:15-03479

BART MASTERS,
Warden
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court are petitioner’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Doc. No.
1), and motions for final disposition or order in a habeas
corpus proceeding.

(Doc. Nos. 15, 16).

By Order, this matter

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert
for submission of findings and recommendations regarding
disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
2).

(Doc. No.

Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Proposed

Findings and Recommendation on April 6, 2016, in which she
recommended that the district court deny petitioner’s motions
for final disposition or order, dismiss petitioner’s application
for a writ of habeas corpus, and remove this matter from the
court’s docket.

(Doc. No. 17 at 17).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing
1 

days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge
Eifert’s Findings and Recommendation.

The failure to file such

objections constitutes a waiver of the right to a de novo review
by this court.

Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir.

1989).
Petitioner failed to file any objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendation within the seventeen-day
period.

Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed

by Magistrate Judge Eifert, the court adopts the findings and
recommendation contained therein.
Additionally, the court has considered whether to grant a
certificate of appealability.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

A

certificate will not be granted unless there is “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
2253(c)(2).

Id. §

The standard is satisfied only upon a showing that

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by this court is debatable or wrong and
that any dispositive procedural ruling is likewise debatable.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
683–84 (4th Cir. 2001).

The court concludes that the governing

standard is not satisfied in this instance.
court DENIES a certificate of appealability.

2 

Accordingly the

The court hereby ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis
contained within the PF&R, DENIES petitioner’s motions for final
disposition or order in a habeas proceeding, (Doc. Nos. 15, 16),
DISMISSES petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
(Doc. No. 1), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the
court’s docket.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and
petitioner, pro se.
It is SO ORDERED this 19th day of May, 2016.

ENTER:

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3